Appeal No. 2005-0052
Application No. 09/192,014
included. For example, Irons, at column 11, lines 22-26,
discloses that “information on document disposition . . . ” can
be included in the coded portion of the document tag. Again, we
fail to see, in the absence of any language defining the claimed
performed service, why disposition of the hard copy document
would not be considered a “service” performed on the hard copy
document.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of all of the claims on appeal. Therefore,
the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-6, 11, 14, and
15 is affirmed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007